Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

If you want atheists to think God exists, you would need to provide some logical arguments and some scientific evidence.

Why is the inference always that I am asking for proof that God does not exist? I am not asking that. I am asking how you can reach that conclusion absent a philosophical argument?

Strawman. I was demonstrating that you have the burden of proof for your positive claim.

You are making the same mistake. Yes, you can comment on a fictional character but it is not logical to ask for proof of same and that is where the logic is flawed. That's the part that I just can't seem to get across. In order to make the comments/accusations that are being made against God, there is an element of concession that He does possibly exist....which, logically precludes his status from being fictional in the discussion.

I am saying the character is fictional, therefore I am in a position of skepticism to its actual existence, and I have every right to ask for proof when you claim it exists. If YOU make the claim that God is real and not fictional, YOU need to provide proof for that. If you don't have any proof, just say so.

Wrong again. You are violating the law of non-contradiction. God cannot be both real and fictional at the same time.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

If you want atheists to think God exists, you would need to provide some logical arguments and some scientific evidence.

Why is the inference always that I am asking for proof that God does not exist? I am not asking that. I am asking how you can reach that conclusion absent a philosophical argument?

Strawman. I was demonstrating that you have the burden of proof for your positive claim.

Okay. So do you believe God exists or not ? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

You are making the same mistake. Yes, you can comment on a fictional character but it is not logical to ask for proof of same and that is where the logic is flawed. That's the part that I just can't seem to get across. In order to make the comments/accusations that are being made against God, there is an element of concession that He does possibly exist....which, logically precludes his status from being fictional in the discussion.

I am saying the character is fictional, therefore I am in a position of skepticism to its actual existence, and I have every right to ask for proof when you claim it exists. If YOU make the claim that God is real and not fictional, YOU need to provide proof for that. If you don't have any proof, just say so.

Wrong again. You are violating the law of non-contradiction. God cannot be both real and fictional at the same time.

Of course. However, if you want to prove your claim, you do need to provide evidence.

Okay. So do you believe God exists or not ? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

That is a great question. I actually grew up Christian. I went to apologetics seminars and Sunday school classes and studied my Bible. You know what? Not a single Christian has ever been able to provide a rational argument for the existence of Bible God. It is all about fallacy and emotion.

Plus what about the ridiculous claims in the Bible, such as two people having enough of a gene pool to create a population, the Flood, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc. No proof of these except for circular reasoning that the Bible is true because it is God's Word and God exists because the Bible says so.

We live in the 21st century. It is time to leave behind the archaic mythology of Christ, which is comparable to Mithras, Attis, Dionysus, Horus, Gilgamesh, etc. There, I have answered your question.

Of course. However, if you want to prove your claim, you do need to provide evidence.

Which brings me right back to the question I asked in an earlier post: why would Alzael (or anyone else for that matter) argue against something that requires proof before it can even be argued against? Do you see the dilemma now in arguing that it is somehow logical to comment on and/or accuse what is either or neither fictional or real? It has to be or the other in this case or it is non-contradictory.

Okay. So do you believe God exists or not ? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

That is a great question. I actually grew up Christian. I went to apologetics seminars and Sunday school classes and studied my Bible. You know what? Not a single Christian has ever been able to provide a rational argument for the existence of Bible God. It is all about fallacy and emotion.

Plus what about the ridiculous claims in the Bible, such as two people having enough of a gene pool to create a population, the Flood, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc. No proof of these except for circular reasoning that the Bible is true because it is God's Word and God exists because the Bible says so.

We live in the 21st century. It is time to leave behind the archaic mythology of Christ, which is comparable to Mithras, Attis, Dionysus, Horus, Gilgamesh, etc. There, I have answered your question.

Now, your turn. Any proof God exists????

The process you described for deciding that God does not exists is based on the same type of logic and reason that I am accused of using to demonstrate that He does exist. Ultimately, you are using a form of 'faith' to reach that conclusion.

Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you. Since I contend that you have disproven God's existence to yourself by faith, I cannot provide the type of proof you seek without using my faith.....and that would be talking out both sides of my mouth now, wouldn't it?

However the relevant point is in one of the corrections that Emergence interrupted the debate to make.

Quote

In this debate BibleStudent stated the following:

Quote

QuoteI had the occasion recently to discuss this creature [Archaeopteryx] with a biologist who is very familiar with it and, in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

In this passage BibleStudent is likely talking about a conversation with me. I feel that he severely misrepresents my position in the passage quoted above.

It is not correct that I was “compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition”. During our conversation I never changed my stance that Archaeopteryx undeniably and without doubt represents a transitional form between reptilelike and birdlike animals and is strong evidence for such a transition.

In our conversation we did not talk about “proof”. I hold the position that “proof” is a purely mathematical concept which isn’t applicable to natural sciences or any other field outside of mathematics. As empiricist I also hold the position that all knowledge is dependent on our experience and therefore no knowledge is exempt from potential error. I therefore told BibleStudent in our conversation, that I accept the possibility of being wrong in my assessment. This doesn’t negate that I – at the current time, with the current state of my knowledge – have not the least doubt that an evolutionary transition from reptilelike animals to birdlike animals happened in the ancient past and that the fossil remains of Archaeopteryx are strong evidence of such a transition and represent – without doubt - a transitional form.

Somehow your decision to lie about it those events now, doesn't surprise me. But pretending not to know about it is kind of dumb, since you responded at the time.

BSI know all about the conversation. I denied then that I lied about anything and I still do.

AzdYes, I know you lied about your lie then. And as I said, it's unsurprising that you're lying about it again now.

Further, you conceded your debate with UP about evolution, so either the concession (via leaving without comment) was a lie on your part, or your current position of denial of evolution is a pretense.

Here's BS and Larissa.

Larissa

Please, BS, like I asked for in the other thread, find someone who agrees with you that evolution is not a valid theory. This person needs to have more education in the subject than I do. I have a Bachelors from a top university (USC) in Biology. I want to hear from someone who went to a legitimate university (not a diploma-mill or creationist college) and has a degree in Biology or some sub-set. This person needs to be able to explain why things like DNA overlap between species is not a result of evolution. I would prefer if they had this evidence against evolution published in a peer-reviewed reputable scientific journal, but you have already stated that is impossible, since such a report does not exist. Please don't give me any links to someone saying something incredibly stupid, like abiogenesis is evolution, the big bang is evolution, the scientific method is wrong, or spouts any easily disproven by science Bible "fact"

BibleStudent, they are not credible sources I'm afraid, according to Dr. X. Read his post (I'm sure you have, but think it over). She does want peer-reviewed sources, but also the people who wrote the articles must have a degree in Biology. That's extremely important. Do quick Google searches that show whether the person's credentials can be taken seriously or not. If you do find people that do have good credentials, have been peer-reviewed, and deny that evolution is a valid theory and also states why, then post the sources. If you do not, be honest and admit that the only sources you could find where such and such. Everyone makes mistakes; hell, I make mistakes. It's good to be honest when it comes to citing sources. No one gets away with citing weird and questionable sources... No one...

Followed by BS

That's a ridiculous contention. A degree in biology may assist in determining credibility but it does not confirm a person's depth of knowledge.

Again, what makes these 'peer reviewed' sources insufficient ?

Frankly, I think you are just outright dismissing them because they do not agree with your views on evolution.

This is him saying that the dismissal of the information he provided. Information which does not meet any of the criteria requested, might I add, is cause for him to think that we are dismissing them out of bias.

Really I could go on about how much he lies and acts dishonestly and give him loads more proof but I wouldn't want to overwhelm him. He has a lot to argue against now. I'm sure it will be very informative.

By the way, invite all of you new guys to go over his old posts and threads. He's actually rather hilarious in them. Unintentionally, but hilarious still.

You are making the same mistake. Yes, you can comment on a fictional character but it is not logical to ask for proof of same and that is where the logic is flawed. That's the part that I just can't seem to get across. In order to make the comments/accusations that are being made against God, there is an element of concession that He does possibly exist....which, logically precludes his status from being fictional in the discussion.

Your reply, such as it was, did not answer my post, nor did it answer hers. It is nothing but more sophistry to try to avoid providing evidence to support your belief in God's existence. You are equating "Alzael's comments about God's behavior and conduct" to "his requests for you to provide evidence to support your assertion that God exists". In other words, you are using the fact that he is commenting on God to try to get out of providing evidence for God. Surely, if you had evidence, you would find no difficulty in presenting it instead of trying to dodge the question or pretend that you answered it using sophistry?

If you can't provide this evidence, then just admit it. If you can, then just provide it. Attempting to dodge the question or use sophistry to get out of answering it only increase the suspicion that you don't have any evidence and call everything else you assert into question because you're being so evasive about the matter.

To put it another way in light of recent posts, if you can't provide evidence that can be verified, then the presumption is that God is fictional. It is your job to convince us otherwise by providing evidence that we can see, measure, and test. If you can't, then all of the verbal fencing in the world to try to get out of admitting that you don't have that evidence amounts to nothing.

Okay. So do you believe God exists or not ? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Plus what about the ridiculous claims in the Bible, such as two people having enough of a gene pool to create a population, the Flood, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc. No proof of these except for circular reasoning that the Bible is true because it is God's Word and God exists because the Bible says so.

Now, your turn. Any proof God exists????

Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you.

Well, you need to prove that what was said by CC is true. Your faith claims these things. You need to prove the claims are true.

Have you got any proof that the god as depicted in the book known as the holy bible is true? CC mentioned the key factors that the holy bible claims.

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Dude, you are starting to freak me out with this perverse obsession you seem to have about cutting and pasting these enormous sections of postings in a fruitless attempt to try and demonstrate that I am a liar. The fact that you are cutting and pasting these substantial gobs of postings tells me that you are having a very difficult time finding something. If it was as blatant as you implied, you would have found something by now. You are starting to look very desperate.

Let's do this. I am going to pretend to admit that you are right and that I am a liar right now. Okay? Cool? Are you satisfied now and we can just move on? I'll rescind my request for you to prove me a liar so you can get some rest tonight.

What is it that keeps you restrained from doing whatever the heck you might feel like doing?

Short answer: the frontal lobe.

More detail: The end product (i.e. what I do) is what I feel like doing, from autonomic activation to refined pre-frontally mediated behaviour, the whole is what I label with the words "feel like doing". I can look at one stage of a proto-thought as what I "really" want to do (or feel like doing), or I can see it as an initial, imcomplete stage of processing. I don't see the limbic component of cognition as more "core" or "feeling" rich, nor do I apply any value to it beyond it's proper physiological function. The perception of duality is metacognition of a multi-step cognitive process.

Dude, you are starting to freak me out with this perverse obsession you seem to have about cutting and pasting these enormous sections of postings in a fruitless attempt to try and demonstrate that I am a liar. The fact that you are cutting and pasting these substantial gobs of postings tells me that you are having a very difficult time finding something. If it was as blatant as you implied, you would have found something by now. You are starting to look very desperate.

Dude, this is the internet, and there is no hiding on the internet.Get a grip. Calm down. Get laid. Do something. Just relax. Sure, Alzael could have created a new thread with what he posted. But you came here asking the same question that you got answers to way back in 2010. Did you think that someone here would forget your replies?

Which brings me right back to the question I asked in an earlier post: why would Alzael (or anyone else for that matter) argue against something that requires proof before it can even be argued against? Do you see the dilemma now in arguing that it is somehow logical to comment on and/or accuse what is either or neither fictional or real? It has to be or the other in this case or it is non-contradictory.

I was saying "of course" that God cannot be both real and fictitious at the same time. It is OK for us to have different views on that, because one of us is going to be wrong when it comes to the objective reality of the situation. People disagree all the time and try to defend each of their positions. There is nothing illogical about that.

I think you are stuck in a logical ditch, if you will, at the moment because the argument certainly can progress if you would please provide your reasons for believing in God.

Which brings me right back to the question I asked in an earlier post: why would Alzael (or anyone else for that matter) argue against something that requires proof before it can even be argued against?

Precisely because people BELIEVE it does even in the absence of that proof. When people do that, you have 2 choices. Either you step into their belief system and argue it from the inside out, or stand there all day saying "God is not real, prove it or get out." The second does not promote any conversation at all, nor does it make you see how stupid your belief system is.

Johann Becher (1625-1682) and Georg Stahl (1660-1734) had much in common: Both were German, physicians, university professors, and contributors to the phlogiston theory. Phlogiston explained how air initially supports combustion and then does not. It also addressed some of the shortcoming of Aristotle's theory, particularly its vague notions of chemical change. Becher proposed that terra pinguis (fatty earth) was present in all flammable materials; this substance was given off during burning and the resulting ash was the true material. Coining the term phlogiston from the Greek word phlogistos (burning), Stahl believed living matter contained a soul that differed in composition from nonliving matter (vitalism theory). Stahl outlined his medical theories in The True Theory of Medicine (1708) and the book had great influences throughout Europe. The Becher/Stahl theory explained burning, oxidation, calcination (metal residue after combustion), and breathing in the following way:

Flames extinguish because air becomes saturated with phlogiston. Charcoal leaves little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston. Mice die in airtight space because air saturates with phlogiston. When heated, metals are restored because phlogiston transferred from charcoal to calx.

Anyway, it turned out that this theory was entirely false. Now, is it logical to comment on or argue against pholgiston, even though it is not real? Yes, but only because people actually believed it was real first. The first people who debunked the theory of phlogiston HAD to argue against it, did they not? They had to prove, using evidence and reason, why phlogiston was not real. We do the same stuff all the time with you Christians.

Do you see the dilemma now in arguing that it is somehow logical to comment on and/or accuse what is either or neither fictional or real? It has to be or the other in this case or it is non-contradictory.

No. There is no dilemma. I would like to also ask you how you would go about arguing against believers in Thor, Vishnu or Allah without first stepping inside what they believe is true?

The process you described for deciding that God does not exists is based on the same type of logic and reason that I am accused of using to demonstrate that He does exist. Ultimately, you are using a form of 'faith' to reach that conclusion.

No, that's simply not true. You START with the belief that God is real and you cram everything about reality into that hole. We don't start with the notion it's real and work backwards, nor do we start with the notion that it's completely false either. We let the observations we make about the world lead our mind toward a logical conclusion. And one massive problem for you is this... if you take away the bible; take away the history of the church; take away every believer in the world and then work toward a conclusion given everything that our world presents to us on a daily basis, there is no possible way in hell that ANYONE would come to the conclusion that the Christian God is real. It's just not possible. There is no evidence. Now, I am not adverse to the possibility that some form of deity exists, but the Christian God? Fuck no. Not even close. That's mental retardation.

Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you.

Horseshit. What you could offer to us is solid evidence of events that could not otherwise be explained. Events like people growing arms and legs back. Like people praying to fly and wings suddenly sprouting out of their back. Like people who are going to commit murder suddenly have the gun taken out of their hand and are slapped into handcuffs and brought to the local jail by an invisible force. Those types of events would lead our minds toward the rational conclusion that some sort of God may be real. But don't get mad at us just because you can't provide that. And don't try to project the weakness of your own argument against ours. The fact that the universe acts as if there is no supernatural entity pulling the strings leads our mind toward the logical conclusion that there is no supernatural entity. Again, the difference is that you START with the belief in God, and make excuses for what the universe acts as if there is no supernatural entity. Get it?

Since I contend that you have disproven God's existence to yourself by faith, I cannot provide the type of proof you seek without using my faith.....and that would be talking out both sides of my mouth now, wouldn't it?

God's non-existence is a logical conclusion based on the various flaws in the theory that God exists. Just like phlogiston. Does it take faith to disbelieve in phlogiston?

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

You are making the same mistake. Yes, you can comment on a fictional character but it is not logical to ask for proof of same and that is where the logic is flawed. That's the part that I just can't seem to get across. In order to make the comments/accusations that are being made against God, there is an element of concession that He does possibly exist....which, logically precludes his status from being fictional in the discussion.

Your reply, such as it was, did not answer my post, nor did it answer hers. It is nothing but more sophistry to try to avoid providing evidence to support your belief in God's existence. You are equating "Alzael's comments about God's behavior and conduct" to "his requests for you to provide evidence to support your assertion that God exists". In other words, you are using the fact that he is commenting on God to try to get out of providing evidence for God. Surely, if you had evidence, you would find no difficulty in presenting it instead of trying to dodge the question or pretend that you answered it using sophistry?

If you can't provide this evidence, then just admit it. If you can, then just provide it. Attempting to dodge the question or use sophistry to get out of answering it only increase the suspicion that you don't have any evidence and call everything else you assert into question because you're being so evasive about the matter.

To put it another way in light of recent posts, if you can't provide evidence that can be verified, then the presumption is that God is fictional. It is your job to convince us otherwise by providing evidence that we can see, measure, and test. If you can't, then all of the verbal fencing in the world to try to get out of admitting that you don't have that evidence amounts to nothing.

How utterly absurd. Your argument is now shifting from whether it is logical to discuss a fictional character to now one of whether God exists or not. ….a ‘red herring’ if I’ve ever seen one.

Nonetheless……….The request for proof of God’s existence has been asked and answered thousands of times over thousands of years. Surely, by now, you have examined all of the arguments made in favor of God’s existence. To ask me for same is devious and born out of malicious intentions. I find it insulting that you would knowingly challenge me to something that you know I cannot satisfy according to your requirements. However, just so I do not get accused of dodging, I will admit that I do not have the proof which would meet with your acceptance for proof of God’s existence. You already knew that, though, didn’t you? If so, then why did you ask for it.

The process you described for deciding that God does not exists is based on the same type of logic and reason that I am accused of using to demonstrate that He does exist. Ultimately, you are using a form of 'faith' to reach that conclusion.

Actually, this is not faith on my part. It is called skepticism. Why should I believe in Bible God? You have yet to answer that.

Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you. Since I contend that you have disproven God's existence to yourself by faith, I cannot provide the type of proof you seek without using my faith.....and that would be talking out both sides of my mouth now, wouldn't it?

I think you are trying to make me out to be as illogical as you are, but that is really not the case. Misery loves company, right, BS?

I am not relying on faith. I am not asking you to rely on faith. I either want a logical argument from you, or some evidence. I suspect you cannot provide any.

Nonetheless……….The request for proof of God’s existence has been asked and answered thousands of times over thousands of years. Surely, by now, you have examined all of the arguments made in favor of God’s existence. To ask me for same is devious and born out of malicious intentions. I find it insulting that you would knowingly challenge me to something that you know I cannot satisfy according to your requirements. However, just so I do not get accused of dodging, I will admit that I do not have the proof which would meet with your acceptance for proof of God’s existence. You already knew that, though, didn’t you? If so, then why did you ask for it.

OK, so you don't have the proof. As I said earlier, no one seems to have any. We are not being malicious, we are merely being skeptical.

Waaay too many posts and questions coming at me all of a sudden. Will do my best to address but no promises. You may have to remind me and just be patient. All I can hope is that you can appreciate how difficult it can be to respond to all of you when it is coming fast and furious.

The process you described for deciding that God does not exists is based on the same type of logic and reason that I am accused of using to demonstrate that He does exist. Ultimately, you are using a form of 'faith' to reach that conclusion.

Actually, this is not faith on my part. It is called skepticism. Why should I believe in Bible God? You have yet to answer that.

Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you. Since I contend that you have disproven God's existence to yourself by faith, I cannot provide the type of proof you seek without using my faith.....and that would be talking out both sides of my mouth now, wouldn't it?

I think you are trying to make me out to be as illogical as you are, but that is really not the case. Misery loves company, right, BS?

I am not relying on faith. I am not asking you to rely on faith. I either want a logical argument from you, or some evidence. I suspect you cannot provide any.

You, too, are now changing direction in the conversation. This all started with me asking how you could reach a decision that God does not exist without making a philosophical argument. You never did answer that. I asked if you believed He existed or not and you said “good question” and then went on to explain the reasons behind your final sentence which was: “it is time to leave behind the archaic mythology of Christ.” I inferred you were explaining how you came to the conclusion that you do not believe He exists (which seems rather evident) but now you’re saying that you don’t know for sure and are instead just a skeptic.

I don’t know if you are trying to push this conversation off in another direction intentionally but you chose to chime in when the discussion was about the role of philosophy in atheism so would you please address that.

I must say, it seems that whenever some of you are having difficulty addressing my comments and questions, there is a swift attempt to derail right back to that tired old request for “logical” “testable” proof of God’s existence. Stick to the topic.

Dude, you are starting to freak me out with this perverse obsession you seem to have about cutting and pasting these enormous sections of postings in a fruitless attempt to try and demonstrate that I am a liar. The fact that you are cutting and pasting these substantial gobs of postings tells me that you are having a very difficult time finding something. If it was as blatant as you implied, you would have found something by now. You are starting to look very desperate.

Dude, this is the internet, and there is no hiding on the internet.Get a grip. Calm down. Get laid. Do something. Just relax. Sure, Alzael could have created a new thread with what he posted. But you came here asking the same question that you got answers to way back in 2010. Did you think that someone here would forget your replies?

What in thee heck are you talking about? What "same question"?? What "replies"? Are you intoxicated?

BS, I am not having any difficulty with your question regarding philosophy. You totally ignored Russell's teapot, which I provided earlier. I think you are trying to save face because you do not have proof that your God exists.

BS, I am not having any difficulty with your question regarding philosophy. You totally ignored Russell's teapot, which I provided earlier. I think you are trying to save face because you do not have proof that your God exists.

Did you read what I wrote in reply #218? I know you did because you commented specifically on it in reply #220. What the heck !!!!!!!!!!!

How utterly absurd. Your argument is now shifting from whether it is logical to discuss a fictional character to now one of whether God exists or not. ….a ‘red herring’ if I’ve ever seen one.

I think you would agree that it makes little sense to discuss the motivations and actions of someone while leaving the question of whether they are a real entity or a fictional one hanging. The discussion over why a real entity does or did something must necessarily be different than why a fictional character does or did something, so it stands to reason that getting that nailed down, or at least getting everyone on the same page, is important.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Nonetheless……….The request for proof of God’s existence has been asked and answered thousands of times over thousands of years. Surely, by now, you have examined all of the arguments made in favor of God’s existence. To ask me for same is devious and born out of malicious intentions. I find it insulting that you would knowingly challenge me to something that you know I cannot satisfy according to your requirements. However, just so I do not get accused of dodging, I will admit that I do not have the proof which would meet with your acceptance for proof of God’s existence. You already knew that, though, didn’t you? If so, then why did you ask for it.

My intent was neither devious nor malicious. I simply wanted to know what evidence you, personally, had to demonstrate God's existence, my apologies if I did not make that clear. Everything that I have yet seen used to demonstrate God's existence has either been purely subjective in nature - all well and good for the person actually having such a subjective experience, but it doesn't help when it comes to presenting some kind of objective evidence - or purely logical in nature - arguments based on rhetoric which depend on a premise that must be assumed true without proof.

And no, I did not know whether you would have evidence or not. I suspected you might not, but I did not know, and I could not have known without just coming out and asking you. I prefer that people speak for themselves about something like this, instead of being forced to make an assumption from their behavior. Thank you for doing so.

No one. Merely making the point that you claimed he wanted to foil Satans plan, yet he didn't get rid of the person who was planning against him. Leaving him to make the same plan again. Especially since the evil came right back to.

That’s because you are cherry picking with a singular intent to discredit. If you really wanted to make a fully informed decision about whether I am this vile, disgusting person, then you would go back through ALL 800+ of my posts and see if there is anything that counters the impression you have. Futhermore, if what I do in my personal life might have swayed you in another direction, don’t you think it would be common courtesy to ask for that BEFORE you make such harsh accusations?

So......are you ever going to get around to providing counter evidence?

..........It would be really simple if what you're saying is right. You can go back through your posts too you know.

All you have to do is find one or two examples of you behaving in a way counter to what I said and I'm instantly wrong.

Anytime now, BS............still waiting.

That's what I thought.

Now stop trying to play the victim. How many times have I specifically asked you to defend yourself now? Given you every opportunity to do so?

You see, we have a long history, BS. I can go back and find many more of them, but why should I have to when you can't even defend against the recent examples?

Therefore, if there does exist a supreme being that created all of us, you are going to tell Him how he Is to conduct Himself….whether His conduct makes sense to you or not? In other words, is it not possible that He possesses the ability to make decisions and carry out plans via a wisdom and understanding that you cannot comprehend. This is one of the things I find most startling. If you are willing to concede that there might just be an all powerful Creator (that created the heavens, earth, universe, plants, animals, and you and I), then it only goes to reason that He is in possession of a wisdom that far exceeds yours.

You want to argue “words” then we can keep going until the sun burns up, chief.I feel like I keep repeating myself but, AGAIN, I used the word “seems”, which means: 1. To give the impression of being; appear: 2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: 3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident:

That means I have the impression that you are doing what I said it “seems” you are doing. Do you really want me to list all of the insults you have leveled against me….or are you willing to concede that there have been numerous occasions when you have done so?

So stop repeating yourself. Provide what was asked for instead. It might be such a novelty you'll come to like it.

How utterly absurd. Your argument is now shifting from whether it is logical to discuss a fictional character to now one of whether God exists or not. ….a ‘red herring’ if I’ve ever seen one.

I think you would agree that it makes little sense to discuss the motivations and actions of someone while leaving the question of whether they are a real entity or a fictional one hanging. The discussion over why a real entity does or did something must necessarily be different than why a fictional character does or did something, so it stands to reason that getting that nailed down, or at least getting everyone on the same page, is important.

If there was proof that had settled the matter once and for all, then what would be the point of the discussion. This forum wouldn't even exist. It's a given (and you know it) that the vast majority of discussions regarding God's existence inherently acknowledge that as a possibility....even if it's not stated. If that were not true, as I've stated before, then the only logical non-theist response about God's character (which was what was at issue) would have to be that He does not exist so He has no character.

If you have already reached a decision that God does not exist and you are perfectly settled in that and don't want to argue it, then just say so instead of injecting yourself into a conversation about it.

Bzzzzt. I didn't run away like a sissy. I was confined to the ER. I just got let out a couple of days ago. I'm sure one of the mods will confirm this for you if need be.

Well, you are acting the same way you did in your ER thread. You haven't changed at all. (and FYI: The ER has been abandoned several months ago. The forum has changed its way of moderating and found the ER pointless. But hey, go to the ER thread and find more examples of how you are a dodger. LadyA called you out there...

EDIT: And in the ER you are given an opportunity to change you posting habits. And you didn't then. You're the same now as you were then.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 07:12:58 PM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.